PHI Claude Giroux u2.5 +136 WIN 1.36
ANA Ryan Getzlaf u2.5 -183 LOSS -1.83
BOS Brad Marchand u2.5 -115 LOSS -1.15
BOS Jake DeBrusk u2.5 -147 LOSS -1.47
TOR Morgan Rielly o2.5 +116 LOSS -1
yesterday was pretty bad ROI% wise. luckily we didn't have much volume but still got crushed worse than the books TomG was betting at. Which is odd because we did really good on halfs, quarters, and full games. Shouldn't those things be related?
yesterday was pretty bad ROI% wise. luckily we didn't have much volume but still got crushed worse than the books TomG was betting at. Which is odd because we did really good on halfs, quarters, and full games. Shouldn't those things be related?
I'm not happy with how I'm doing SOGs. Something isn't right. I'm doing the standard approach--create my own projection system for seasonal stats, use that as a baseline, and adjust that for the day's matchup. I'm happy with my baseline projections but I don't think my adjustments are right. I've tried a few things and none of them seem to work.
Home/Away splits with back-to-backs factored in
Opposing Team Corsi Against / League Avg
Opposing Team Shots Against / League Avg
(Opposing Team Shots Against / Opposing Team Corsi Against) / League Avg
Any other ideas? As someone who knows nothing about hockey, what does it mean for a team to be "good at defense?" I guess we could actually test some ideas but I've always been a guess-n-check kind of guy (hence me fumbling around in this thread).
For example, are the NY Rangers "good at defense"? They allow a **** ton of Corsi events. The most in the league actually and they have a horrible CF%. But they are pretty good (lucky?) at preventing those Corsi events from being on goal. And they aren't giving up that many actual goals which make me think they are purposely allowing teams to take lower quality shots? Or is that not a thing since they then risk getting scored on by higher quality rebound shots? Explain this game to me.
what do you bros think about the 8 dog in the 4th race at Orange Park Matinee?
Its legs look so beastly and it's 99/1
edit: put $10 on it and the price went down to 12/1. there's only $170 in the win pool at post time. RIP dog racing. also big on the 2/8 exacta (aka $5)
I alluded to this earlier about xG and how this also exists in basketball. However, I just got trolling by some derp.
Basically if you're not adjusting for shot quality and shooter quality, you're prob at a very basic level.
Here are some thoughts:
1) Do you median scores actually equal the game total? If not you should consider fitting to this.
2) Consider if teams allow certain players to score more or less than others. Similar to how DVOA considers how teams scheme against certain offensive players that can help you understand how good they are against relative types of shooters.
3) Look at line play, and see if different lines perform relatively different than the overall team.
For example, are the NY Rangers "good at defense"? They allow a **** ton of Corsi events. The most in the league actually and they have a horrible CF%. But they are pretty good (lucky?) at preventing those Corsi events from being on goal. And they aren't giving up that many actual goals which make me think they are purposely allowing teams to take lower quality shots? Or is that not a thing since they then risk getting scored on by higher quality rebound shots? Explain this game to me.
without looking it up I think I remember NYR specifically under torterella always allowing a ton of shots and shot attempts but usually having abnormally low shooting% against. Accounting for "shooting skill" in hockey was always kind of a problem, team and player wise. Is it strategy to allow more low quality shots? Is it because of Lundquist? Are they just getting lucky (was usually the case but not always).
I used to assume player shooting percentage over the past 3 years was their true level, IIRC you regressed pretty heavily when we last spoke. I didnt love my approach but it was always good enough to beat props (a few years ago anyway. Havent done them in a while). Im surprised youre killing points but not SOG, SOG was always one of my best subsets for years and I used a fairly simple model.
For example, are the NY Rangers "good at defense"? They allow a **** ton of Corsi events. The most in the league actually and they have a horrible CF%. But they are pretty good (lucky?) at preventing those Corsi events from being on goal. And they aren't giving up that many actual goals which make me think they are purposely allowing teams to take lower quality shots? Or is that not a thing since they then risk getting scored on by higher quality rebound shots? Explain this game to me.
I think xG is a pretty solid metric for evaluating the strength of a defense, and as you mentioned the Rangers are pretty god awful in that regard. Things like high danger chances allowed per 60 would also be a pretty good way to know the quality of chances a team gives up. You can take a look at things like https://www.chartinghockey.ca/daily-...y-team-charts/ and poke around at some teams that give up a lot of shots but still have low xGA.
I guess we can just use opposing team goalie saves, add back expected goals, and subtract our projected team totals SOGs. The leftover is our market-implied fudge factor.
Call the fudge factor Greek letter, φ, to make it sound scientific.
